Air Engagement of Operation Sindoor : Analysis

2. Your Point on Radar Equations Still Doesn’t Land​


Your whole “difference between two equations” argument boils down to this: you believe the radar wave that reflects off Rafale and is received by the J-10 is somehow proof that SPECTRA failed. That's laughable.


In real life:


  • Rafale may never have been illuminated if it was flying low, using emission control, and masked by terrain clutter.
  • Or, the PL-15 may have fired in LOAL mode, then activated radar in terminal phase — giving no early RWR warning, just as I already explained.
  • And your formula doesn't model time delay, deceptive jamming, multi-source emission, or false range gate injection — all core parts of SPECTRA’s playbook.

Your textbook equation = detection in a vacuum.
Combat ECM = dirty, dynamic, multi-path chaos
I think your understanding is questionable. What I mean is that there is a difference between the radar signal reflected by the gust of wind and the radar signal received by the J10.
There are Chinese people who understand active cancellation much better than you do: there are Chinese academic works on this subject, you should read them.
For exemple: Security verification
:ROFLMAO:
I don't know if you're pretending to be from Dassault, but I think you should know this
Screenshot_2025-05-15-22-15-52-864_com.miui.gallery.png
 
They should admit that F-35 is a great strike jet and very good in air-to-air role, but they're hellbent to prove that it's even better than Raptor in ASF role which is downright asinine.

That's American propaganda. They are as stuck-up as trans and climate agenda activitsts. Nothing anybody says will get through to them.

MKI deal was signed in 1996 and we got our first MKI in 2002. If we sign now, we can get first Su-57MKI in 2031. In the meantime, just like we went from Su-30K<Su-30MK<Su-30MKI from 1997-2002, we simply will go from Su-57E<Su-57M<Su-57MKI<Su-60MKI .

Su-57 is imperative now because of AMCA FOC in 2040 and F-35 being a no-go because of American shenanigance. The earlier IAF & GOI realize that, the better for us.

The issue being we won't sign anything new with Russia until the war is over. The next issue is we won't like the generic Su-57 model, we want more advanced variants. It's possible the first and second will converge at the same time. So we could get into negotiations around 2030, ie after LCA Mk2 and MRFA are done deals, if we are still pursuing it.

Then comes MKIzation, production and deliveries, which is a minimum 6 year process. So 2 years to negotiate, and 6 years for IOC model. Then comes FOC. So MKI's FOC practically came in 2007. That's 12 years after the contract was signed. So our Su-57M could also take at least 10 years. That's 2040. And expensive.

Unfortunately, anything beyond 2035 is AMCA territory. A supercruiser with highband stealth like the Su-57 is directly in conflict with AMCA. So any import has to be a step up over the AMCA.
 
"but the IAF is different!" yes exactly . just like the US Navy is different and France is different. if General Hostage said the Rafale is "useless" would Randomradio go along with him or disagree?

Yes, if the general is from France or India. Even other Rafale operators. Especially a general who's directly in command of the units.

An IAF air chief in the past pointed out that the Su-57 was 5th gen relative to Rafale's 4.5th gen and it was true at the time, when the Su-57 was a paper plane with just a few non-stealth prototypes and the Rafale was in its F3+ configuration.

A word of advice, hit the enter button twice when you are creating a paragraph. It's easier on the eyes.
 
Trump instructed Apple chief in-front of the world not to invest in India. Say goodbye to any F-35. Su-57MKI is now literally a lock.
Lol. Moments later, he was also bragging about how we'd offered him a zero tariff trade deal. Good thing Ambani was there to cover for India. Look how close we came to buying the Stryker. Outgoing US DefSec Lloyd Austin had pushed for it repeatedly with MoD (we might have never pitched for it in the first place). And this is Trump and Vance we're talking about.
 
Is this the technical level of Dassault engineers?
I don't think Dassault hired Trump! It was just to illustrate that Trump was talking rubbish in response to your post:
which unfairly questioned the Forum.
 
I think your understanding is questionable. What I mean is that there is a difference between the radar signal reflected by the gust of wind and the radar signal received by the J10.

I don't know if you're pretending to be from Dassault, but I think you should know this
View attachment 43297
LX, thanks for the jacket flex. AVIC embroidery sure looks sharp — pity it can’t hide the fact that your exports keep exploding on impact.


You show off Chinese aerospace logos like it proves technical superiority — meanwhile:


  • China sold Pakistan a fleet of JF-17s that can’t fly in lightning conditions,
  • Shoved AESA radars into airframes barely stable at high G,
  • And loaded them with PL-series missiles whose real kill probability is as well-hidden as your GDP breakdown.

Let me remind you — the only real wreckage from the Balakot episode was a PAF F-16’s AMRAAM tail, found deep inside Indian territory. If Rafale was shot down as you claim, where’s the debris? Where’s the canopy? Where’s your HD image?


You had HD jackets, HD powerpoints, and HD slogans — but not a single HD image of your so-called "kill."

Also, about China and Pakistan — let’s not pretend it’s brotherhood.​


  • China didn’t give JF-17s to Pakistan — it sold them.
  • China didn’t give CPEC to Pakistan — it loan-sharked it.
  • And when your "all-weather friend" needed help post-airstrike? You gave them new slogans, not air defense.

You fed them underpowered jets, delayed tanks, overpriced drones — and billed them like it’s AliExpress Defense. That’s not alliance. That’s extractive colonialism in Mandarin.

And finally, your "active stealth" lecture?​


You rewrote exactly what I said — opposite-phase EM emissions to suppress reflection — and then claimed I “don’t understand.” That’s like explaining boiling water to a kettle.


SPECTRA doesn’t use theoretical Hollywood stealth — it uses EW deception, false range gates, DRFM loops, and active angular jamming. And you clearly haven’t read a single French or NATO doc on it. Instead, you quote your own echo chamber and pretend superiority.




So LX — keep the AVIC selfies coming. Meanwhile, India will keep flying Rafales.


Pakistan will keep trying to decode why its F-16s keep falling.
And China will keep sending invoices — with interest.
"but the general said and you can't disagree with the general!!" is not "technical discussion" its debate, its an attempt to shut down discussion because a "general said so". not only is it a fallacious appeal to authority which is logical fallacy, one general is not the ultimate authority on all things forever. That article has been debated to death and my point was that there is as much said as unsaid. American officers have a real glib way of speaking, its generalized and often exaggerated along with lots of lingo and comparison and analogies. by the USAF doctrine, remember there are other services and countries that use the F-35 and it is their air superiority choice. Remove the bombs and the F-35 does very well. Not like an F-22, but again there are more doctrines than just the USAF. are we really doing to say that India lacks an air superiority fighter because its not an F-22? by USAF doctrine that is true. they wouldn't count the Rafale either.
"but the IAF is different!" yes exactly . just like the US Navy is different and France is different. if General Hostage said the Rafale is "useless" would Randomradio go along with him or disagree? RR only uses these sources when they say things he wants to hear, and ignores the rest. If a general agrees he says "listen to the general!" if a general disagrees he ignores the general or "adds technical commentary" to contradict an authority figure he told us minutes before was the ultimate authority. The point still stands that the F-35 having "better" stealth is still open to interpretation. most of this boils down to what we choose to believe and believe to be important versus things we choose to ignore or downgrade because in our eyes its not as important
The F-35C to the navy is an air superiority fighter. it doesn't work like an F-14, but its not supposed to either. the USAF declaring everything but an F-22 to be "not air superiority" would seem to be an obvious rhetorical trap mixed with good old fashioned American smugness, and I am shocked that so many of you fall for it.
not to forget how many of these articles are poorly constructed and that the "pentagon" has many face and many facets and many disagreements and plenty of things that contradict one another.


that is exactly what I am saying. The F-15 is last generation. the F-35 is stealth. the F-15 is not. technology marches on and while the F-15 might have ruled the skies for decades it was never expected to kill fighters it cannot see, and meanwhile the F-35 can see the F-15 all along. Has nothing to do with "scripted exercise" and everything to do with yesterdays tech being replaced by aircraft that are newer and simply bound to replace them. please explain how an F-15 that can't detect an F-35 is expected to find and kill the F-35? and please explain how the F-15 which can't hide from the F-35 is expected to survive being hunted down? it is not complicated.

that is not "doctrine" by definition and there are more air arms than just the USAF. this is where none of this makes sense by "doctrine"
F-22 =Air superiority fighter
F-15= Air Superiority fighter but no EM dominance and no Super Cruise. (still defined as ASF!)
F-35= Stealthy and kills Blind F-15s = not air superiority!
So the F-35 is a not air superiority aircraft that kills air superiority F-15 that no longer fit the "doctrine" of air superiority
very confusing!!
ig we want to say F-35 is not air superiority no matter how effective it is at killing aircraft because of the above criteria then we need to acknowlegde that the F-15 is no longer air superioity either. in other words the "doctrines" or definition are basically just arbitrary inventions. sure an F-35 will kill an F-15 90 times out of 100, but by golly just because its "air superiority" doesn't mean its superior in the air! ok!


There aren't even 200 F-22s, and only one service in one country uses them. "deadly in BVR and highly survivable." is what makes the F-35 capable of air superiority. the question is not what the F-35 was "designed" to do, what can it do? only the American air force has F-22s so everyone else just sits there helplessly hoping the F-22s show up while their ships sink and airfields burn? or do they use the F-35 to control the skies?
"oh no! the air force book says we can't do the air superiority mission!" do we really think all 180+ F-22s are going to be in the right time and right place against China and no F-35s are going to end up having to sweep the skies? We already know there are tactics for F-35s what will have some aircraft in Strike mode and some only in Air to Air missile loadouts. Air superiority is a MISSION. it is not a set of requirements for pass/fail. if every F-22 broke and some sad *censored* CF-18 takes off, the CF-18 is doing the air superiority MISSION. And the point of the Air Superiority mission is to kill the enemy and control the skies -- not to Super cruise. super cruise is supposed to help faciliate kiling things and controlling the skies. but it is not an end onto itself, which is where the confusion comes in.
this is why we have people telling us that the F-15 is an "air superiority fighter" because of its kinematics, but it can't actually control or kill against an F-35 which everyone assures me is not an "Air superiority fighter"
A more accurate statement would be that the characteristics (not doctrine) of air superiority fighters typically include but are not necessarily required to be: "
an F-15 can't do air superiority when an F-35 is in the area hunting it, because the F-15 is fundamentally on the defensive against a threat it can't counter. meanwhile the F-35 can keep popping AMRAAMS (because all American fighters F-22 to F-18 use the same weapons) at the F-15 which has no choice but to REACT. if a fighter is REACTING, rather than ACTING it is in defensive mode and no longer in control of the airspace. in other words the F-15 may say "Air superiority fighter" on the title, but it is not so when going against "fat amy" and thus the entire notion of what is or is not air superiority is questionable. not because of what the USAF "says" but because of what the aircraft are and are not capable of.
hopefully this explains some things my answers are going to be shorter
Thanks for the essay — you’ve successfully redefined “copium” as a doctrine.


You’re ranting about how “air superiority” is just a label, doctrine is meaningless, and the F-35 “kills stuff” so it must be air superiority — as if semantics override strategy. That logic would make a donkey an F1 car because it occasionally crosses a finish line.


But let’s not miss the forest here:


While you're having existential crises over fighter definitions, China’s still flying J-7s, reverse-engineering Ukrainian turbofans, and painting fake stealth contours on knockoff J-20s to impress village parades.

Your "superior" PLAAF still depends on:


  • Copied Russian airframes (Su-27, Su-33),
  • Imported engines, and
  • Hundreds of obsolete jets as airbase filler.

Meanwhile, you’re here debating Western platforms because your own are too classified (read: embarrassing) to even put on the table.

so do keep explaining how the F-35 is secretly a god-tier ASF, and how doctrine is a social construct — but maybe explain it to the folks back home who can’t build a fighter engine without looting a Ukrainian factory or a joint venture.


Because when it comes to actual air dominance, the F-35 is flying. China’s still catching up. And your arguments — like your J-20’s stealth — don’t hold up under radar.
 
Yes, if the general is from France or India. Even other Rafale operators. Especially a general who's directly in command of the units.

An IAF air chief in the past pointed out that the Su-57 was 5th gen relative to Rafale's 4.5th gen and it was true at the time, when the Su-57 was a paper plane with just a few non-stealth prototypes and the Rafale was in its F3+ configuration.

A word of advice, hit the enter button twice when you are creating a paragraph. It's easier on the eyes.
Well I have a surprise for you. There is a French general interview, saying the Rafale was worse than the F-16 in the UAE comp. UAE didn't want to go backwards. I'll let you scream for a while, then put up the link.


Changed my mind, here it is

With the general Alain SILVY
Deputy Chief Plans within the Staff of the Air Force.
The french government took the pledge with the Rafale manufacturer to ensure, whatever happens, a minimum annual rate of 11 aircrafts. A rate estimated by the manufacturer as the floor below which it would not be possible to go without calling into question the economy of the program, including the unit cost of these aircrafts. The LPM (Law of Military Planning) not providing matching funds for the purchase of these machines for the years 2013 and 2014, either export allow very opportunely to keep the commitment to the industry, or export is lacking and the french state must find the necessary budgets by reducing or eliminating other programs. Is this commitment based on obtaining export orders a dangerous bet?

Alain Silvy: Let's be honest. This "bet", to use your word, on short-term obtaining of export orders for the Rafale, has nevertheless allowed to complete the LPM allowing the planning of a big hole in the shipment for the Air Force and the Navy without questioning the production rate, already reduced to the minimum industrially acceptable by Dassault Aviation. Deliveries to the French armies should be reduced to only 2 or 3 machines per year for a time, the export bringing the complement to reach the threshold of 11 Rafale produced per year. In case of absence of export order, the situation would become obviously complicated.[…] We would have to find a substantial funding of several hundred million euros. […]

But how to find the hundreds of millions euros in question?

The 3 armies have all benefited from the choice made by the planners of the LPM to reduce to a very low level the Rafale deliveries. The amount saved have been reallocated to the 3 armies. I think nobody questions it. We should have to find the funds by making new balancing within the LPM […] we must now hope that will come very quickly a first export order. […] But export is not neutral. Potential customers, including UAE, have specific requirements with developments leaving the French standards - and therefore with budget not taken into account by the LPM - they want cofinanced by the French state. That could require for France to find further funding for the Rafale program […]

What would be the cost for France of these additional co-development to fund with a potential UAE customer?

One hears everything and its opposite. Everything depends on what one includes. Personally, I do not give precise figures. But this is obviously something like several hundreds of millions of euros paid by the french state.

Is the Air force interested by some of the UAE requirements ?

From my point of view, it depends where. We could be potentially interested by the M88-X with 9 tons of thrust because it would be, in the circumstances, an open field. But, on the other hand, we have not yet reached the stage of maturity - which requires about 150,000 flight hours – with the current M88 with 7.5 tonnes thrust. This means that with the M88-X, even if it should presumptively enjoy a good community with the existing M88, we would have to accumulate even more hours to reach the stage of maturity of the engine.

Very clearly, in my opinion, the M88-X is not for the Air force an immediate need. In order to sell the Rafale to the UAE, the Defense may ultimately be asked to acquire the M88-X in a quantity and on terms still to define. And we'll maybe even happy to use it. But today we have no technical or operational reasons to make it available for us.The gain expected from the arrival of a more powerful engine is lower than the risks we would go with the technical immaturity of new modules and the management in parallel - so complicated in terms of logistics and operational employment of aircraft with different performances –of two relatively different parks of M88. All this must be thorough.

Would it be possible to see Safran manufacturing M88-X for UAE and continue to deliver “classic” M88 for the french Rafale? And this notwithstanding that the french government would have co-funded the development of the M88-X

It is not forbidden to imagine it. On condition, however, that to maintain the parallel production of two versions of M88 does not cost more than producing a single model. The support costs must not explode. Safran must tell us very quickly and very frankly what it would be. And again, nothing force us to equip the whole fleet of Rafale, Air and/or Marine.

And about the UAE demand to have a more powerful RBE2 radar, could it answer to some expectations for the Air force?

The Air Force is interested in having a RBE2 with an active antenna. It is now established with the powerful AESA antenna which will equip our tranche 4 Rafale. What the Emirians are calling for is much more complex. They want, in addition to the AESA, to have new functionalities on their Rafale, such as GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target), interlacing between air/air and air/ground modes, etc.. Even if this is not for us an urgent need, the operational 'plus' obtained could nonetheless eventually interest us. However, the key Emirian demand is about the range of the RBE2. And, with the same antenna diameter, the only way to achieve the 10% range increase (compared with the Basic AESA F3 "roadmap") that wish to obtain the Emirians, is a big boost to the power of the radar.

But more power to the RBE2, could it be a risk to generate serious electromagnetic interference (EMI) with the SPECTRA receptors ?

There is indeed a very real EMI risk to treat. This is the case whenever we want to change aircraft emission systems. There are solutions, obviously, but this will require to reexamine SPECTRA. But the biggest problem we have identified is about electric generation, which could be insufficient. To increase the maximum range of a few nautical miles, we would have to deeply review the electrical generation system of the aircraft.
In short, to conceive what it could be a Rafale-9, that is to say a new aircraft moving away from the similarity you want with french Rafale.

The Emirati experts participating in negotiations are well aware of the problem. But they are also used to have very high quality weapons systems. They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60, the Rafale having also many other qualities. The Emirians don’t have AWACS and therefore want - it is a fundamental requirement - that the Rafale can see very far. Beyond the radar, they are showing fairly strong requirements into SPECTRA development with, for example, the expansion of some frequency bands, an increased sensitivity, adding functionalities; in short, they want we push up the current technologies. Of course, to improve the electronic warfare of our Rafale faster than originally planned could be an additional operational advantage for the Air force. However, our current approach is to consolidate the features implemented in SPECTRA, to make them more robust and make it easier for operators and programmers before wanting to go further into addition of new capabilities. The current SPECTRA is working well and even very good. In sum, what separates us, about Spectra, is a matter of timing and calendar […]. In a more general way, we share the same wishes about capabilities, but with very different maturities calendar sometimes. Budgetary constraints remain a dimensioning factor.

The Emirians want a viewfinder-HMD ...

It's true. And ourselves, one way or another, we will. For various reasons, we agreed in the past to not use it initially, but this equipment is now an almost indispensable element for modern combat aircraft. Besides various prospects of the Rafale - the UAE, Brazil and Switzerland – also want it, confirming this analysis.

In the end, what about the eventuality of a Rafale order by the UAE?

Very sincerely, and seen from my place, I think we're really not very far from being able to reach a common ground with our UAE friends. The only pertinent question to be asked is whether the will of similarity expressed by the Emirians will prevail over their performance requirement If performance is what counts, in fact we’ll get two quite different Rafale - as with the Mirage 2000-9 - because the french state can not or do not want to follow it. If the community is paramount, the Emirians will have to reduce their ambitions with regard to performance. The choice is now in their hands. They must see if their operational necessities allow them or not to settle for a weapon system fairly close to the F3 "roadmap" French standard. They must decide whether they consider more important to work very closely with us. I know they have already expressed the wish, in case of order, to be able to send their pilots very quickly in our Rafale units where they could train, learn the Rafale and our tactical employment. To obtain a rapid operational rise of their own Rafale squadron. in that case their Rafale configuration and ours must not be very different. But it remains to be seen ... That is where we are I think
.
How long would require the additional developments required by the UAE?

It is difficult to answer precisely this question, especially since I do not have all the elements of the problematic. The first UAE aircraft would not be delivered before 2014. This period should be sufficient to finish to develop a 9 tons M-88. About the radar, we would not probably have in 2014 all the capabilities and performance expected, but they would, I think, nevertheless be already very close to the target. The problem of electric generation requires also time to be processed. This will be a heavy operation for the aircraft. In the case of an order signed this year, we would therefore have some years to develop the additional features. These years should not be wasted. In any case, I think the discussions with Emirians take place on a sound footing. Their negotiators are experts who know exactly what is fighter plane and are aware of the state of the art and of various constraints. Talking to people at this level is very pleasant for the Air Force. However, now the order must materialize.

What about the UAE Mirage 2000-9 ?

The French authorities have been very clear on this subject. Once the Rafale ordered by UAE, the Mirage 2000-9 will be taken back by France which will issue them to a defeasance agency in charge of their resale export. This means that in this hypothesis, it is not envisaged that they equip the French Army.

But would it be interesting for the Army because these are recent cells with advanced weapons systems ?

We can not say that we feel no interest in these machines, because their weapons system displays really astonishing performance. The Air Force could certainly benefit. However, the indispensable work for NATO compatibility on these weapons systems would be very heavy with a cost probably exceeding the one - 700 millions euros - planned for the renovation of our Mirage 2000D, which is a priority for us.

If the UAE buy the Rafale, could the Rafale Transformation Squadron (ETR), which will be created in Saint-Dizier, be relocated at Al-Dhafra to help UAE pilots and benefit from the excellent local weather conditions ?

Why not? but we are not there yet. […] To install the ETR – as a whole or just a part - at Al-Dhafra could be an asset. Our first participation, last autumn, to the ATLC (Advanced Tactical Leadership Course) organized by the UAE Air Warfare Center, has once again demonstrated the richness of such exchanges. If the UAE order the Rafale, we may have to quickly take charge, in a way or another, of the transformation of their pilots on our weapon system. Doing it at Al-Dhafra would be - and this is only my opinion - interesting.

Interview by Jean-Louis Prome
 
Last edited:
oh I disagree with the idea that he is a boy. Typically men when caught in a falsehood say "oh you have catched me, i will now tell the truth" it is usually Women who will lie in rapid fire even as they keep getting caught, digging the hole deeper and deeper and all the while convinced that it is working!

Ah, the usual leftist tactic of using ad hominems when there are no arguments left?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Well I have a surprise for you. There is a French general interview, saying the Rafale was worse than the F-16 in the UAE comp. UAE didn't want to go backwards. I'll let you scream for a while, then put up the link. I may have put it up before?


Changed my mind, here it is
With the general Alain SILVY
Deputy Chief Plans within the Staff of the Air Force.
The french government took the pledge with the Rafale manufacturer to ensure, whatever happens, a minimum annual rate of 11 aircrafts. A rate estimated by the manufacturer as the floor below which it would not be possible to go without calling into question the economy of the program, including the unit cost of these aircrafts. The LPM (Law of Military Planning) not providing matching funds for the purchase of these machines for the years 2013 and 2014, either export allow very opportunely to keep the commitment to the industry, or export is lacking and the french state must find the necessary budgets by reducing or eliminating other programs. Is this commitment based on obtaining export orders a dangerous bet?

Alain Silvy: Let's be honest. This "bet", to use your word, on short-term obtaining of export orders for the Rafale, has nevertheless allowed to complete the LPM allowing the planning of a big hole in the shipment for the Air Force and the Navy without questioning the production rate, already reduced to the minimum industrially acceptable by Dassault Aviation. Deliveries to the French armies should be reduced to only 2 or 3 machines per year for a time, the export bringing the complement to reach the threshold of 11 Rafale produced per year. In case of absence of export order, the situation would become obviously complicated.[…] We would have to find a substantial funding of several hundred million euros. […]

But how to find the hundreds of millions euros in question?

The 3 armies have all benefited from the choice made by the planners of the LPM to reduce to a very low level the Rafale deliveries. The amount saved have been reallocated to the 3 armies. I think nobody questions it. We should have to find the funds by making new balancing within the LPM […] we must now hope that will come very quickly a first export order. […] But export is not neutral. Potential customers, including UAE, have specific requirements with developments leaving the French standards - and therefore with budget not taken into account by the LPM - they want cofinanced by the French state. That could require for France to find further funding for the Rafale program […]

What would be the cost for France of these additional co-development to fund with a potential UAE customer?

One hears everything and its opposite. Everything depends on what one includes. Personally, I do not give precise figures. But this is obviously something like several hundreds of millions of euros paid by the french state.

Is the Air force interested by some of the UAE requirements ?

From my point of view, it depends where. We could be potentially interested by the M88-X with 9 tons of thrust because it would be, in the circumstances, an open field. But, on the other hand, we have not yet reached the stage of maturity - which requires about 150,000 flight hours – with the current M88 with 7.5 tonnes thrust. This means that with the M88-X, even if it should presumptively enjoy a good community with the existing M88, we would have to accumulate even more hours to reach the stage of maturity of the engine.

Very clearly, in my opinion, the M88-X is not for the Air force an immediate need. In order to sell the Rafale to the UAE, the Defense may ultimately be asked to acquire the M88-X in a quantity and on terms still to define. And we'll maybe even happy to use it. But today we have no technical or operational reasons to make it available for us.The gain expected from the arrival of a more powerful engine is lower than the risks we would go with the technical immaturity of new modules and the management in parallel - so complicated in terms of logistics and operational employment of aircraft with different performances –of two relatively different parks of M88. All this must be thorough.

Would it be possible to see Safran manufacturing M88-X for UAE and continue to deliver “classic” M88 for the french Rafale? And this notwithstanding that the french government would have co-funded the development of the M88-X

It is not forbidden to imagine it. On condition, however, that to maintain the parallel production of two versions of M88 does not cost more than producing a single model. The support costs must not explode. Safran must tell us very quickly and very frankly what it would be. And again, nothing force us to equip the whole fleet of Rafale, Air and/or Marine.

And about the UAE demand to have a more powerful RBE2 radar, could it answer to some expectations for the Air force?

The Air Force is interested in having a RBE2 with an active antenna. It is now established with the powerful AESA antenna which will equip our tranche 4 Rafale. What the Emirians are calling for is much more complex. They want, in addition to the AESA, to have new functionalities on their Rafale, such as GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target), interlacing between air/air and air/ground modes, etc.. Even if this is not for us an urgent need, the operational 'plus' obtained could nonetheless eventually interest us. However, the key Emirian demand is about the range of the RBE2. And, with the same antenna diameter, the only way to achieve the 10% range increase (compared with the Basic AESA F3 "roadmap") that wish to obtain the Emirians, is a big boost to the power of the radar.

But more power to the RBE2, could it be a risk to generate serious electromagnetic interference (EMI) with the SPECTRA receptors ?

There is indeed a very real EMI risk to treat. This is the case whenever we want to change aircraft emission systems. There are solutions, obviously, but this will require to reexamine SPECTRA. But the biggest problem we have identified is about electric generation, which could be insufficient. To increase the maximum range of a few nautical miles, we would have to deeply review the electrical generation system of the aircraft.
In short, to conceive what it could be a Rafale-9, that is to say a new aircraft moving away from the similarity you want with french Rafale.

The Emirati experts participating in negotiations are well aware of the problem. But they are also used to have very high quality weapons systems. They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60, the Rafale having also many other qualities. The Emirians don’t have AWACS and therefore want - it is a fundamental requirement - that the Rafale can see very far. Beyond the radar, they are showing fairly strong requirements into SPECTRA development with, for example, the expansion of some frequency bands, an increased sensitivity, adding functionalities; in short, they want we push up the current technologies. Of course, to improve the electronic warfare of our Rafale faster than originally planned could be an additional operational advantage for the Air force. However, our current approach is to consolidate the features implemented in SPECTRA, to make them more robust and make it easier for operators and programmers before wanting to go further into addition of new capabilities. The current SPECTRA is working well and even very good. In sum, what separates us, about Spectra, is a matter of timing and calendar […]. In a more general way, we share the same wishes about capabilities, but with very different maturities calendar sometimes. Budgetary constraints remain a dimensioning factor.

The Emirians want a viewfinder-HMD ...

It's true. And ourselves, one way or another, we will. For various reasons, we agreed in the past to not use it initially, but this equipment is now an almost indispensable element for modern combat aircraft. Besides various prospects of the Rafale - the UAE, Brazil and Switzerland – also want it, confirming this analysis.

In the end, what about the eventuality of a Rafale order by the UAE?

Very sincerely, and seen from my place, I think we're really not very far from being able to reach a common ground with our UAE friends. The only pertinent question to be asked is whether the will of similarity expressed by the Emirians will prevail over their performance requirement If performance is what counts, in fact we’ll get two quite different Rafale - as with the Mirage 2000-9 - because the french state can not or do not want to follow it. If the community is paramount, the Emirians will have to reduce their ambitions with regard to performance. The choice is now in their hands. They must see if their operational necessities allow them or not to settle for a weapon system fairly close to the F3 "roadmap" French standard. They must decide whether they consider more important to work very closely with us. I know they have already expressed the wish, in case of order, to be able to send their pilots very quickly in our Rafale units where they could train, learn the Rafale and our tactical employment. To obtain a rapid operational rise of their own Rafale squadron. in that case their Rafale configuration and ours must not be very different. But it remains to be seen ... That is where we are I think
.
How long would require the additional developments required by the UAE?

It is difficult to answer precisely this question, especially since I do not have all the elements of the problematic. The first UAE aircraft would not be delivered before 2014. This period should be sufficient to finish to develop a 9 tons M-88. About the radar, we would not probably have in 2014 all the capabilities and performance expected, but they would, I think, nevertheless be already very close to the target. The problem of electric generation requires also time to be processed. This will be a heavy operation for the aircraft. In the case of an order signed this year, we would therefore have some years to develop the additional features. These years should not be wasted. In any case, I think the discussions with Emirians take place on a sound footing. Their negotiators are experts who know exactly what is fighter plane and are aware of the state of the art and of various constraints. Talking to people at this level is very pleasant for the Air Force. However, now the order must materialize.

What about the UAE Mirage 2000-9 ?

The French authorities have been very clear on this subject. Once the Rafale ordered by UAE, the Mirage 2000-9 will be taken back by France which will issue them to a defeasance agency in charge of their resale export. This means that in this hypothesis, it is not envisaged that they equip the French Army.

But would it be interesting for the Army because these are recent cells with advanced weapons systems ?

We can not say that we feel no interest in these machines, because their weapons system displays really astonishing performance. The Air Force could certainly benefit. However, the indispensable work for NATO compatibility on these weapons systems would be very heavy with a cost probably exceeding the one - 700 millions euros - planned for the renovation of our Mirage 2000D, which is a priority for us.

If the UAE buy the Rafale, could the Rafale Transformation Squadron (ETR), which will be created in Saint-Dizier, be relocated at Al-Dhafra to help UAE pilots and benefit from the excellent local weather conditions ?

Why not? but we are not there yet. […] To install the ETR – as a whole or just a part - at Al-Dhafra could be an asset. Our first participation, last autumn, to the ATLC (Advanced Tactical Leadership Course) organized by the UAE Air Warfare Center, has once again demonstrated the richness of such exchanges. If the UAE order the Rafale, we may have to quickly take charge, in a way or another, of the transformation of their pilots on our weapon system. Doing it at Al-Dhafra would be - and this is only my opinion - interesting.

Interview by Jean-Louis Prome
This was way back in 2010. Indian Rafale's have all the stuff they(UAE) were asking for(GMTI/GMTT) and more except the 90KN M-88 version.
 
This was way back in 2010. Indian Rafale's have all the stuff they(UAE) were asking for(GMTI/GMTT) and more except the 90KN M-88 version.
I hate to tell you this but not much has changed in 15 years. I think GMTI won't be coming till the radar update..Promised to India before and is just a now F5? promise.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Well I have a surprise for you. There is a French general interview, saying the Rafale was worse than the F-16 in the UAE comp. UAE didn't want to go backwards. I'll let you scream for a while, then put up the link.


Changed my mind, here it is

With the general Alain SILVY
Deputy Chief Plans within the Staff of the Air Force.
The french government took the pledge with the Rafale manufacturer to ensure, whatever happens, a minimum annual rate of 11 aircrafts. A rate estimated by the manufacturer as the floor below which it would not be possible to go without calling into question the economy of the program, including the unit cost of these aircrafts. The LPM (Law of Military Planning) not providing matching funds for the purchase of these machines for the years 2013 and 2014, either export allow very opportunely to keep the commitment to the industry, or export is lacking and the french state must find the necessary budgets by reducing or eliminating other programs. Is this commitment based on obtaining export orders a dangerous bet?

Alain Silvy: Let's be honest. This "bet", to use your word, on short-term obtaining of export orders for the Rafale, has nevertheless allowed to complete the LPM allowing the planning of a big hole in the shipment for the Air Force and the Navy without questioning the production rate, already reduced to the minimum industrially acceptable by Dassault Aviation. Deliveries to the French armies should be reduced to only 2 or 3 machines per year for a time, the export bringing the complement to reach the threshold of 11 Rafale produced per year. In case of absence of export order, the situation would become obviously complicated.[…] We would have to find a substantial funding of several hundred million euros. […]

But how to find the hundreds of millions euros in question?

The 3 armies have all benefited from the choice made by the planners of the LPM to reduce to a very low level the Rafale deliveries. The amount saved have been reallocated to the 3 armies. I think nobody questions it. We should have to find the funds by making new balancing within the LPM […] we must now hope that will come very quickly a first export order. […] But export is not neutral. Potential customers, including UAE, have specific requirements with developments leaving the French standards - and therefore with budget not taken into account by the LPM - they want cofinanced by the French state. That could require for France to find further funding for the Rafale program […]

What would be the cost for France of these additional co-development to fund with a potential UAE customer?

One hears everything and its opposite. Everything depends on what one includes. Personally, I do not give precise figures. But this is obviously something like several hundreds of millions of euros paid by the french state.

Is the Air force interested by some of the UAE requirements ?

From my point of view, it depends where. We could be potentially interested by the M88-X with 9 tons of thrust because it would be, in the circumstances, an open field. But, on the other hand, we have not yet reached the stage of maturity - which requires about 150,000 flight hours – with the current M88 with 7.5 tonnes thrust. This means that with the M88-X, even if it should presumptively enjoy a good community with the existing M88, we would have to accumulate even more hours to reach the stage of maturity of the engine.

Very clearly, in my opinion, the M88-X is not for the Air force an immediate need. In order to sell the Rafale to the UAE, the Defense may ultimately be asked to acquire the M88-X in a quantity and on terms still to define. And we'll maybe even happy to use it. But today we have no technical or operational reasons to make it available for us.The gain expected from the arrival of a more powerful engine is lower than the risks we would go with the technical immaturity of new modules and the management in parallel - so complicated in terms of logistics and operational employment of aircraft with different performances –of two relatively different parks of M88. All this must be thorough.

Would it be possible to see Safran manufacturing M88-X for UAE and continue to deliver “classic” M88 for the french Rafale? And this notwithstanding that the french government would have co-funded the development of the M88-X

It is not forbidden to imagine it. On condition, however, that to maintain the parallel production of two versions of M88 does not cost more than producing a single model. The support costs must not explode. Safran must tell us very quickly and very frankly what it would be. And again, nothing force us to equip the whole fleet of Rafale, Air and/or Marine.

And about the UAE demand to have a more powerful RBE2 radar, could it answer to some expectations for the Air force?

The Air Force is interested in having a RBE2 with an active antenna. It is now established with the powerful AESA antenna which will equip our tranche 4 Rafale. What the Emirians are calling for is much more complex. They want, in addition to the AESA, to have new functionalities on their Rafale, such as GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target), interlacing between air/air and air/ground modes, etc.. Even if this is not for us an urgent need, the operational 'plus' obtained could nonetheless eventually interest us. However, the key Emirian demand is about the range of the RBE2. And, with the same antenna diameter, the only way to achieve the 10% range increase (compared with the Basic AESA F3 "roadmap") that wish to obtain the Emirians, is a big boost to the power of the radar.

But more power to the RBE2, could it be a risk to generate serious electromagnetic interference (EMI) with the SPECTRA receptors ?

There is indeed a very real EMI risk to treat. This is the case whenever we want to change aircraft emission systems. There are solutions, obviously, but this will require to reexamine SPECTRA. But the biggest problem we have identified is about electric generation, which could be insufficient. To increase the maximum range of a few nautical miles, we would have to deeply review the electrical generation system of the aircraft.
In short, to conceive what it could be a Rafale-9, that is to say a new aircraft moving away from the similarity you want with french Rafale.

The Emirati experts participating in negotiations are well aware of the problem. But they are also used to have very high quality weapons systems. They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60, the Rafale having also many other qualities. The Emirians don’t have AWACS and therefore want - it is a fundamental requirement - that the Rafale can see very far. Beyond the radar, they are showing fairly strong requirements into SPECTRA development with, for example, the expansion of some frequency bands, an increased sensitivity, adding functionalities; in short, they want we push up the current technologies. Of course, to improve the electronic warfare of our Rafale faster than originally planned could be an additional operational advantage for the Air force. However, our current approach is to consolidate the features implemented in SPECTRA, to make them more robust and make it easier for operators and programmers before wanting to go further into addition of new capabilities. The current SPECTRA is working well and even very good. In sum, what separates us, about Spectra, is a matter of timing and calendar […]. In a more general way, we share the same wishes about capabilities, but with very different maturities calendar sometimes. Budgetary constraints remain a dimensioning factor.

The Emirians want a viewfinder-HMD ...

It's true. And ourselves, one way or another, we will. For various reasons, we agreed in the past to not use it initially, but this equipment is now an almost indispensable element for modern combat aircraft. Besides various prospects of the Rafale - the UAE, Brazil and Switzerland – also want it, confirming this analysis.

In the end, what about the eventuality of a Rafale order by the UAE?

Very sincerely, and seen from my place, I think we're really not very far from being able to reach a common ground with our UAE friends. The only pertinent question to be asked is whether the will of similarity expressed by the Emirians will prevail over their performance requirement If performance is what counts, in fact we’ll get two quite different Rafale - as with the Mirage 2000-9 - because the french state can not or do not want to follow it. If the community is paramount, the Emirians will have to reduce their ambitions with regard to performance. The choice is now in their hands. They must see if their operational necessities allow them or not to settle for a weapon system fairly close to the F3 "roadmap" French standard. They must decide whether they consider more important to work very closely with us. I know they have already expressed the wish, in case of order, to be able to send their pilots very quickly in our Rafale units where they could train, learn the Rafale and our tactical employment. To obtain a rapid operational rise of their own Rafale squadron. in that case their Rafale configuration and ours must not be very different. But it remains to be seen ... That is where we are I think
.
How long would require the additional developments required by the UAE?

It is difficult to answer precisely this question, especially since I do not have all the elements of the problematic. The first UAE aircraft would not be delivered before 2014. This period should be sufficient to finish to develop a 9 tons M-88. About the radar, we would not probably have in 2014 all the capabilities and performance expected, but they would, I think, nevertheless be already very close to the target. The problem of electric generation requires also time to be processed. This will be a heavy operation for the aircraft. In the case of an order signed this year, we would therefore have some years to develop the additional features. These years should not be wasted. In any case, I think the discussions with Emirians take place on a sound footing. Their negotiators are experts who know exactly what is fighter plane and are aware of the state of the art and of various constraints. Talking to people at this level is very pleasant for the Air Force. However, now the order must materialize.

What about the UAE Mirage 2000-9 ?

The French authorities have been very clear on this subject. Once the Rafale ordered by UAE, the Mirage 2000-9 will be taken back by France which will issue them to a defeasance agency in charge of their resale export. This means that in this hypothesis, it is not envisaged that they equip the French Army.

But would it be interesting for the Army because these are recent cells with advanced weapons systems ?

We can not say that we feel no interest in these machines, because their weapons system displays really astonishing performance. The Air Force could certainly benefit. However, the indispensable work for NATO compatibility on these weapons systems would be very heavy with a cost probably exceeding the one - 700 millions euros - planned for the renovation of our Mirage 2000D, which is a priority for us.

If the UAE buy the Rafale, could the Rafale Transformation Squadron (ETR), which will be created in Saint-Dizier, be relocated at Al-Dhafra to help UAE pilots and benefit from the excellent local weather conditions ?

Why not? but we are not there yet. […] To install the ETR – as a whole or just a part - at Al-Dhafra could be an asset. Our first participation, last autumn, to the ATLC (Advanced Tactical Leadership Course) organized by the UAE Air Warfare Center, has once again demonstrated the richness of such exchanges. If the UAE order the Rafale, we may have to quickly take charge, in a way or another, of the transformation of their pilots on our weapon system. Doing it at Al-Dhafra would be - and this is only my opinion - interesting.

Interview by Jean-Louis Prome

The Emiratis reversed their position once it was proven that the RBE2 AESA doubled its range compared to its program goal of 50% more range than the PESA.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
You just pulled that claim stright out of you a** didn't you? Or were you privy AAR debriefing the F-35 pilot had? :rolleyes:

That's what the Houthis did. Public information based on Iran's arsenal of already demonstrated capabilities. They have equipped their SAMs with small and large IR missiles. Especially R-73s and R-27s.

The Houthis already have experience downing Teens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
From the classic radar formula, it can be obtained that there is a difference between the radar wave reflected by the Rafale fighter and the radar wave received by the J-10 fighter, and the Rafale fighter's active stealth cannot bridge this difference,

It is not about bridging the difference, this is not possible, it is about making a radar inaccurate.

You wrote a lot to prove that the Rafale was not shot down


Aren't we talking about Rafale's active stealth? You are describing how small the Rafale's RCS value is. What does this have to do with active stealth? The first formula I wrote is the formula for the reflected echo of the Rafale fighter after being illuminated by the radar. σ is the RCS value of the Rafale fighter. The second formula I wrote is the target reflected echo received by the J10 radar. We assume that the radar antenna area is A, then you can clearly see that there is a difference between the two formulas, which is what I said about point 3

The RCS changes when the aircraft maneuvers. Because then the received energy density also changes due to change in reflecter (target) area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spitfire6
The Rafale can accelerate faster than the F-15, can turn faster, can climb faster, can travel as far, can carry as many missiles... It can even supercruise. So what does not make it an ASF?

If you are going by Spitfire's posts, then I gotta clue you in on his ignorance. He has no idea what he's talking about.

To get an ASF, you need an airframe that's specifically been designed for supersonic operations and high G performance. Rafale can fly at mach 2, can supercruise at mach 1.3-1.4, and has 11G performance when subsonic. And it can carry a lot of missiles. It's a textbook definition of an ASF. With the exception of top speed, it exceeds both the F-15A/C and Su-27, and AB top speed is not necessary anymore for an ASF. And at 50% fuel, Rafale has the same TWR as both jets too, 1.2:1. The F-15C and Rafale have very similar fuel fraction, 0.32.

IAF requirements are also for ASFs with secondary strike capabilities. MKI, Mig-29, M2000, Rafale, LCA, and Mig-21 are all ASFs with secondary strike. AMCA as well.

Rafale's airframe has been designed as an ASF, but due to advancements in aerodynamic designs, it can even perform low-altitude strike missions and is an excellent dogfighter. So it's better than the F-15C and Su-27 at this as well.

Rafale has high ceiling as well. There was even a program to launch satellites using Rafale.
And with all that the Rafale is 0-3 in air combat... Well 0-3 claim but a confirm 0-1.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rajput Lion